WWII-Stalingrad [QUENCHED]

[cairnswk]

...
Being a hardcore bloodthirsty enemy you wouldnot allow the opponent to have a peaceful place to recover his wounded troops.
Stalin didnot sign the geneva convention and hitler made use of that (not that it would differ if Stalin had signed it...).
So if you control some artillery elsewhere on the map and you feel that the player controlling the hospital is having a disproportionate benefit, then this is a realistic option to annoy/temper him.
So a plane bombardment on the hospital.
for the (two) entries in front/back of the hospital , I'd say have one of them bombardable by artillery..so to represent a softening up for the advance of your own (or befriended) infantry troops fighting in that direction.
So one entry is infantry (= arty bombardable) and the other can stay a panzer (not arty bombardable).(see the situation around the german HQ1 and 2 ..those are fine..)

Good reasoning and discussion for your proposal. consider done.

Regarding autoreduction of troops:
I gave it a thought and here's what comes close to your original idea:
The R01 to R10 crossings are territories , right ?
Let THOSE territories return to 1(or 2? or 3?) neutral immediately after a player's turn.
(worse than -1 deterioration, but there is a reason;).
The rivercrossing was a dangerous threshold that you had to take in order to be active on the other side of the river.
NO-ONE would ever leave his troops stationary in the river being sitting ducks.
In terms of gameplay: you can't conquer a R01 territory and stay there and build up your troops for a number of turns (as if days or weeks in real time) just long enough to finally attack the enemy riverbank troops.
Once you attack a R01 terr. you must continue to the other side or die trying.
technically, that would mean a one direction attack line... maybe a bit too hard ?
If you like that thought than I would suggest to make the center stalingrad river crossings going from east to west (as the bolshevists did ), whereas the outer river crossings should go from west to east (as the germans would not be so stupid to go in the line of fire).

i like this idea, but have clarification questions.

At present there are four crossings.
1. R1-2
2. R3-6
3. R7-9
4. R10

you want 2. and 3. going east->west
and 1 and 4 going west->east.

Is that correct?

[lt_oddball]

Regarding autoreduction of troops:
I gave it a thought and here's what comes close to your original idea:
The R01 to R10 crossings are territories , right ?
Let THOSE territories return to 1(or 2? or 3?) neutral immediately after a player's turn.
(worse than -1 deterioration, but there is a reason;).
The rivercrossing was a dangerous threshold that you had to take in order to be active on the other side of the river.
NO-ONE would ever leave his troops stationary in the river being sitting ducks.
In terms of gameplay: you can't conquer a R01 territory and stay there and build up your troops for a number of turns (as if days or weeks in real time) just long enough to finally attack the enemy riverbank troops.
Once you attack a R01 terr. you must continue to the other side or die trying.
technically, that would mean a one direction attack line... maybe a bit too hard ?
If you like that thought than I would suggest to make the center stalingrad river crossings going from east to west (as the bolshevists did ), whereas the outer river crossings should go from west to east (as the germans would not be so stupid to go in the line of fire).

i like this idea, but have clarification questions.

At present there are four crossings.
1. R1-2
2. R3-6
3. R7-9
4. R10

you want 2. and 3. going east->west
and 1 and 4 going west->east.

Is that correct?

Yes, 1& 4 would be the "german" crossing and 2 & 3 the russian crossing.
You need an extra R11 at the more east section of the R10 crossing...if Germans were to cross the river then they would come under fire there too between chulkov and chulkov guards.).
Of course you could always decide to add another crossing in either direction.


Another sort of good thing of the returning to neutral of the R## territories is that once landed troops have to survive and fight it out and cannot benefit from "unlimited" or "chained " reinforcement in the next round. (but if they survive one round , the player can of course dump more troops immediately on the landing ground... ). So the resisting player must clear the enemy from the landing grounds in that turn to benefit from the R## threshold the turn after that. Which in turn means that once a player decides to do a crossing he must put in a lot of extra reserves to be certain to succeed.

as any river crossing would give appropriate reaction/counter measure I think all the river crossing neutrals should be the same (value 3 ?) in stead of making one river crossing more dangerous than the other by having a higher neutral (like 4).

[cairnswk]

Click image to enlarge.

[lt_oddball]

no change in the map ?
only colourings ?

ps can you add one more artillery icon on the russian side ?... they did have a lot of artillery there..
And it gives a bit of game balance should a player be locked on the east bank and trying desperate to get over the river..


ahh and found the Gameboard image:
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/image/342573?size=original

[cairnswk]

...
no change in the map ?
only colourings ?
ps can you add one more artillery icon on the russian side ?... they did have a lot of artillery there..
And it gives a bit of game balance should a player be locked on the east bank and trying desperate to get over the river..

Ah, you got in before I did. Please refresh your screen as the changes are posted in the images above.

Version 18.
1. One-way river arrows added as requested.
2. Extra Russian Artillery added as requested.
3. Small change to title
4. Assaults in legend given more space to increase size of text of Luftwaffe and SVV.

Numbers of aircraft on both sides are still the same until i hear from others as to if they should be reduced in number.
Oh and i checked out the game board. Mmmmm!

[lt_oddball]

Numbers of aircraft on both sides are still the same until i hear from others as to if they should be reduced in number.
Oh and i checked out the game board. Mmmmm!

I vote for some plane reduction
4 germans , 2 russians


The boardgamegeek image is just for info (if there are some visible names).
It turns out that any of the other stalingrad boardgames that have the city itself as playground never show the east bank..
strange..


As a sort of measure for balancing and bonuszones tweaking:
Given 2 players , what would be a balanced frontline such that both sides have "exactly" the same fresh troops and such that the frontline looks an acceptable fair frontline.:
If one has the complete west side , he of course should be sure to win... so just as a thought, I 'd guess the balance frontline should be something like "russian" PLayer has : russian eastbank +kupososnoya +Rynok+orlovka = 21 +26/3 = 29 troops
versus the rest of "german" player : 28 + 41/3 = 41 fresh troops (not counting planes & snipers)...
So i guess the german side is too much favoured...
on the other hand, only one city terr lost to the russian and it is (russian) 30 versus (german) 32 troops ..so that looks better, however when you paint the russian terr. red, you'd have covered 2/3 of the map in red...so there is a discrepancy between how the occupation of the map looks and how the actual strength is...
So maybe this is a good way to reduce some of the "german" bonuszones (panzer div is high) or improve a russian one (russian 62nd: after all from this place you should amass troops to make the crossing BEFORE the german player takes all of the west bank.. .. the crossing initiative will come from the player that controls the east bank first.. ).

If you have another balanced frontline in mind, just tell us.

[cairnswk]

...
I vote for some plane reduction
4 germans , 2 russians

Noted.
But the reason i had 8 luftwaffe was so that each player in an 8 player game could get one aircraft.
the russians only had three aircraft, but the other 5 start positions would be distributed among the remaining terts.

As a sort of measure for balancing and bonuszones tweaking:
Given 2 players , what would be a balanced frontline such that both sides have "exactly" the same fresh troops and such that the frontline looks an acceptable fair frontline.:
If one has the complete west side , he of course should be sure to win... so just as a thought, I 'd guess the balance frontline should be something like "russian" PLayer has : russian eastbank +kupososnoya +Rynok+orlovka = 21 +26/3 = 29 troops
versus the rest of "german" player : 28 + 41/3 = 41 fresh troops (not counting planes & snipers)...
So i guess the german side is too much favoured...
on the other hand, only one city terr lost to the russian and it is (russian) 30 versus (german) 32 troops ..so that looks better, however when you paint the russian terr. red, you'd have covered 2/3 of the map in red...so there is a discrepancy between how the occupation of the map looks and how the actual strength is...
So maybe this is a good way to reduce some of the "german" bonuszones (panzer div is high) or improve a russian one (russian 62nd: after all from this place you should amass troops to make the crossing BEFORE the german player takes all of the west bank.. .. the crossing initiative will come from the player that controls the east bank first.. ).

If you have another balanced frontline in mind, just tell us.

i was in favour of some sort of equitable distribution of starting positions along each bank.

[lt_oddball]

...
I vote for some plane reduction
4 germans , 2 russians

Noted.
But the reason i had 8 luftwaffe was so that each player in an 8 player game could get one aircraft.
the russians only had three aircraft, but the other 5 start positions would be distributed among the remaining terts.

OK. is that certain? Each of the 8 player (or each of the 6 player) will certainly have one airplane to start with ?
I didnt realise that certainty/possibility.
That is good.

But then you can reduce the total airplanes number to 8..
5 germans and 3 soviet..

I suppose the german L1 airplane is capable of attacking(bombarding) another luftwaffe L3 airplane ?
Or can luftwaffe plane only attack(bombard) soviet planes and vice versa ? If so; tell it in the legend.

[cairnswk]

...
OK. is that certain? Each of the 8 player (or each of the 6 player) will certainly have one airplane to start with ?
I didnt realise that certainty/possibility.
That is good.

But then you can reduce the total airplanes number to 8..
5 germans and 3 soviet..

I suppose the german L1 airplane is capable of attacking(bombarding) another luftwaffe L3 airplane ?
Or can luftwaffe plane only attack(bombard) soviet planes and vice versa ? If so; tell it in the legend.

I'm still waiting on feedback about the planes from others.
The bombardment legend shows that planes can bombard other planes and bomb targets. It's already there!

[thenobodies80]

I don't think it is possible to imagine all future games as a German VS Russians (specially if there isn't a super bonus for holiding the whole german or the whole russian part ).
Has a player to wait to hold the west/east side for a crossing?
I think Kuporosnoya and Yeremenco, being easy to conquer and then hold, will be used for a quick crossing, especially in the early rounds of the game.

[cairnswk]

I don't think it is possible to imagine all future games as a German VS Russians (specially if there isn't a super bonus for holiding the whole german or the whole russian part ).

So do you want a bonus for each side and then how to identify them?

Has a player to wait to hold the west/east side for a crossing?

No. i don't beleive that is a requirement.

I think Kuporosnoya and Yeremenco, being easy to conquer and then hold, will be used for a quick crossing, especially in the early rounds of the game.

They are both bomb targets, so i don't think they will be easy to hold, if people play the game properly.

[thenobodies80]

I don't think it is possible to imagine all future games as a German VS Russians (specially if there isn't a super bonus for holiding the whole german or the whole russian part ).

So do you want a bonus for each side and then how to identify them?

No ...i'm only saying that I don't think that these change are necessary:

As a sort of measure for balancing and bonuszones tweaking:
Given 2 players , what would be a balanced frontline such that both sides have "exactly" the same fresh troops and such that the frontline looks an acceptable fair frontline.:
If one has the complete west side , he of course should be sure to win... so just as a thought, I 'd guess the balance frontline should be something like "russian" PLayer has : russian eastbank +kupososnoya +Rynok+orlovka = 21 +26/3 = 29 troops
versus the rest of "german" player : 28 + 41/3 = 41 fresh troops (not counting planes & snipers)...
So i guess the german side is too much favoured...
on the other hand, only one city terr lost to the russian and it is (russian) 30 versus (german) 32 troops ..so that looks better, however when you paint the russian terr. red, you'd have covered 2/3 of the map in red...so there is a discrepancy between how the occupation of the map looks and how the actual strength is...
So maybe this is a good way to reduce some of the "german" bonuszones (panzer div is high) or improve a russian one (russian 62nd: after all from this place you should amass troops to make the crossing BEFORE the german player takes all of the west bank.. .. the crossing initiative will come from the player that controls the east bank first.. ).

If you have another balanced frontline in mind, just tell us.

maybe your choice is better and more simple
Where do you want to place starting positions?

[lt_oddball]

[
No ...i'm only saying that I don't think that these change are necessary:

As a sort of measure for balancing and bonuszones tweaking:
Given 2 players , what would be a balanced frontline such that both sides have "exactly" the same fresh troops and such that the frontline looks an acceptable fair frontline.:
If one has the complete west side , he of course should be sure to win... so just as a thought, I 'd guess the balance frontline should be something like "russian" PLayer has : russian eastbank +kupososnoya +Rynok+orlovka = 21 +26/3 = 29 troops
versus the rest of "german" player : 28 + 41/3 = 41 fresh troops (not counting planes & snipers)...
So i guess the german side is too much favoured...
on the other hand, only one city terr lost to the russian and it is (russian) 30 versus (german) 32 troops ..so that looks better, however when you paint the russian terr. red, you'd have covered 2/3 of the map in red...so there is a discrepancy between how the occupation of the map looks and how the actual strength is...
So maybe this is a good way to reduce some of the "german" bonuszones (panzer div is high) or improve a russian one (russian 62nd: after all from this place you should amass troops to make the crossing BEFORE the german player takes all of the west bank.. .. the crossing initiative will come from the player that controls the east bank first.. ).

If you have another balanced frontline in mind, just tell us.

That frontline thing is not meant for a 2 player game .
It was meant to gauge if the disposition of bonusvalues and territory occupation with consideration for natural chokepoints is good/thought through.
Such that some bonuszones need less and others a bit more to balance the map.
Most of the time in multiplayer game there is a gridlock between 3 players, of which 2 are huge with the third being too big to simply overrun in one turn.
A mexican stand-off so to speak.
I like to find out if a map has such natural zones ..
(example: WW2 Europe map has a clear division in three regions..but the soviet one is too large to be had/conquered in time when the german or western one is taken.
With the german in the center being for sure sandwhiched between west and east after a while, it shows that 9 out of ten the mapwinner comes from the west..<if no deadbeats, no vendettas, no stupid players, etc..>).

For this Stalingrad map one of the equilibrium frontlines (that i gave an example of) is too far unbalanced.
Of course you can try to find other natural occupation lines.
(but it is difficult to see a natural chokepoint/screen with many zones having many borders...only the river jetties provide a threshold..and you have the 2 or 3 small corner bonuszones..).
Always think of three or two final players...where will they certainly be ?

[thenobodies80]

Only few things:

• missed name...mmmm maybe a russian commander not yet used? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Stalingrad
  or an army...(not properly in that position) maybe 64th or 57th? http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/47/German_Summer_Offensive_Towards_Stalingrad_July-September_1942_%28simplified%29.png
• you talked about starting positions to balance game. what is your idea? For example planes....what do you think about coded as 1 plane for player (or neutral if not assigned)? I concur with It_oddball about number of planes, but 5 for luftwaffe is not the best graphical choice.
• "VVS airport" entrance is not so clear. then about planes, planes can bombard planes and bombs. VVS planes are able to bombard all planes and all bombs? For example VVS can bombard 62nd 2nd div or only the opposite side? (same thing for thewest side)
• Like planes, artillery...for example yeremenko can bombard 62nd 2nd div? (same for the west side)
• Hospital is bombarded, why not to code the +1 but as an autodeploy? specially if all planes can bombard hospital.
• Orlovka Woods borders with Barrikady woods?
• From R7 or R8 is almost impossible to reach land....sniper, adjacent territories, bombs,artillery....lazur and btf are like hell! Same from R4 to refinery. I think it's more easy from Rynok and gran silo to do the crossing infact is better to start from a bad place but to arrive in a safer one (Volga island and cuckov artillery).
• Chulkov guards and 62 chulkov are linked only by a dotted line and not with arrows

On the whole we have a good map.
I'm waiting for a second opinion , but i think the main foundry is around the corner.

Good work!

[cairnswk]

...
[*] you talked about starting positions to balance game. what is your idea? For example planes....what do you think about coded as 1 plane for player (or neutral if not assigned)? I concur with It_oddball about number of planes, but 5 for luftwaffe is not the best graphical choice.

Gameplay....I had toyed with a couple of ideas....

Idea 1.
Player 1 starts german somewhere near German HQ
Player 2 starts russian on the right bank
PLayers 3 starts left bank
Player 4 starts right bank
etc. etc.
This would gave a German against Russian feel to gameplay, however it falls down with the Join Game options of doubles, triples and quadruples, as i beleive you can only choose teams (player 1 and 2 VS player 3 &4 for example) and using those starting positions would not be compatible with 1, 2, 3, 5, 7 player games.

Idea 2Having normal classic type selection with a few positions starting as neutral, such as the western city line running from Station 1 to Barrikady North.

Idea 3Having all normal starting positions.


Let me know if you have any other suggestions.

[the.killing.44]

The other problem with that is that you can only specify where starting positions are, but not who starts where.

.44

[cairnswk]

The other problem with that is that you can only specify where starting positions are, but not who starts where.

.44

Mmm! yes, good point!

[cairnswk]

This map is undergoing a bit of a change at present, some re-arrangement of terrs and names....back soon.

[Teflon Kris]

The other problem with that is that you can only specify where starting positions are, but not who starts where.

.44

It is possible to code starts - a similar point to that made in the Galipoli map - but only one set of coded starts can be applied however many players there are. If you code for 8-players, then in a 4-player game (for example), the 4-players have starts where they are coded, then the 4 non-players starts are randomly distributed.

I say, let's start a thread somewhere asking for an xml change so that different start codings can be set for different numbers of players - I'm guessing it would get plenty of support and come to lack's attention.

Currently, many maps have workable gameplay for all settings, the change would enable those maps to have ideal gameplay for each setting.

[cairnswk]

The other problem with that is that you can only specify where starting positions are, but not who starts where.

.44

It is possible to code starts - a similar point to that made in the Galipoli map - but only one set of coded starts can be applied however many players there are. If you code for 8-players, then in a 4-player game (for example), the 4-players have starts where they are coded, then the 4 non-players starts are randomly distributed.

I say, let's start a thread somewhere asking for an xml change so that different start codings can be set for different numbers of players - I'm guessing it would get plenty of support and come to lack's attention.

Currently, many maps have workable gameplay for all settings, the change would enable those maps to have ideal gameplay for each setting.

DJ...there is already a thread available in Not Maps (mostly)...
XMl Modifications and Variations
where you can suggest these modifications with a reason why they should be implemented.
Perhaps you could offer this there.

[lt_oddball]

If you code for 8-players, then in a 4-player game (for example), the 4-players have starts where they are coded, then the 4 non-players starts are randomly distributed.

Well, that works all right then ?

If in a 4 player field each player gets certainly 1 airplane slot (and no more than 1) and the other 4 of the 8 are left grey/neutral then we have a solution ?

[cairnswk]

If 8 luftwaffe are xml starts then the breakdown would be thus i beleive:

2 Players 4 each
3 players 2 each 2 neutral
4 players 2 each
5 players 1 each 3 neutral
6 players 1 each 2 neutral
7 players 1 each 1 neutral
8 players 1 each

[sinctheassasin]

I like the map a lot, and o would love to see programed starts by number of players

Good work!

[cairnswk]

I like the map a lot, and o would love to see programed starts by number of players ...

sinc...can you expand on your thoughts for this please.

[lt_oddball]

If 8 luftwaffe are xml starts then the breakdown would be thus i beleive:

2 Players 4 each
3 players 2 each 2 neutral
4 players 2 each
5 players 1 each 3 neutral
6 players 1 each 2 neutral
7 players 1 each 1 neutral
8 players 1 each

Is this the easiest/automatic xml solution ? Or you have to program this (if..then ..if not then..if ..then.. else) ?
Wouldn't it be simpler to have
2 Players 1 each 6 neutral
3 players 1 each 5 neutral
4 players 1 each 4 neutral
5 players 1 each 3 neutral
6 players 1 each 2 neutral
7 players 1 each 1 neutral
8 players 1 each



as a side effect it hems the favourable starting benefit of the first player in a 2 player field..
This should be the general case anyway; if 8 players start with (e.g.) 10 fields each, then in a 2 player game each should start with 10 fields as well (and not 40 fields), all the rest being neutral.